Appellant disputes wealth tax calculation, challenges deductions, and cites ITAT precedents.

The appellant challenged the Commissioner of Wealth Tax's order, arguing that the total wealth calculation did not consider property encumbrances. Lower authorities' failure to review explanations and evidence was contested. The Wealth Tax Officer deducted "right of user charges," reducing declared wealth. Valuation of jewellery followed Schedule-III of WT Act, with a previous ITAT order applied. The first appellate authority upheld this decision. Despite presenting a related ITAT judgment, the appeals were dismissed, directing adherence to the High Court's ruling for the relevant years. The name change certificate was acknowledged.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Consideration of encumbrance on property for determining total wealth
Non-consideration of explanations, submissions, and evidences by lower authorities
Application of Schedule-III of WT Act for valuation of jewellery
Relevance of right of user charges in determining wealth
Impact of past history on appellate authority's decision
Applicability of previous Tribunal decision in appellant's case
Incorporation name change certificate's relevance

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, contending that the total wealth was erroneously determined without considering the encumbrance on the property in the form of the right of use of Rajal. The appellant argued that the lower authorities failed to consider various explanations, submissions, and evidences, breaching the Principles of Natural Justice. The Wealth Tax Officer reduced the wealth of the assessee by the "right of user charges" of Rs.6,74,677, leading to a declared wealth of Rs.26,52,136. The AO determined the value of jewellery based on Schedule-III of the WT Act, ignoring restrictive covenants as per Rule 18 and Circular No.281. The AO added the "Right of user of Rajal" amount back to the wealth, citing a previous ITAT order in the appellant's case.

The first appellate authority upheld the AO's decision based on past history. The appellant presented an ITAT decision in a related case, emphasizing the application of the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The appeals were dismissed with the direction that the High Court's decision would apply for the years in question. The appellant also submitted a certificate of incorporation reflecting a name change from Rajal Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. to Arohi Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed, and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court was to be applied for the relevant years. The incorporation name change certificate was noted for record purposes.

---